The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Very interesting input from everyone so far, it seems each machine has its strengths and weaknesses. It also seems that Victor Orthophonic has greater emphases on changing the style of its horn than Edison. I have a Japanese J 80 tabletop with Victor Exhibition reproducer, it sounds good, however I am not sure if these small VV 1-90 and VV J-80 tabletop models have the exponential horn?

Victrolacollector wrote:Very interesting input from everyone so far, it seems each machine has its strengths and weaknesses. It also seems that Victor Orthophonic has greater emphases on changing the style of its horn than Edison. I have a Japanese J 80 tabletop with Victor Exhibition reproducer, it sounds good, however I am not sure if these small VV 1-90 and VV J-80 tabletop models have the exponential horn?

All of the references I've spotted referred to it as a small folded exponential horn, for instance -- http://www.victor-victrola.com/1-90.htm

The horn, itself, looks very much like the one used in the second series Granada. It's horn is shown on this page -- http://www.phonoland.com/viewtopic.php?t=258 (Unfortunately, the image I downloaded showing the 1-90's horn is no longer in the site's database.)

Joe

gregbogantz wrote:
Much as I had hoped that the Schubert Edisonic that I have would sound appreciably better than my C-200, C-19, and C-250, the difference is sadly minimal. When I saw that the horn is nearly the same flattened conical design, it was clear why they all sounded about the same. Edison DD horns are primitive and they honk just like any other conical horn does. There is nothing the tiniest bit sophisticated about them. The honk produces a peak in the midrange of the frequency response. Some people think this improves the "presence" of the sound. Some people like it. But it's far from accurate. The Edisonic horn is longer which causes it to honk with a lower peak frequency than the shorter DD horns. That's all that's different.

Greg, first off, I do fundamentally agree with you re. the Edison DD horn deficiencies when compared with the orthophonic horns. I'm an Edison DD fan who is completely willing to own that my own preferences along that line are purely matters of taste. Of course the best play-back for the Edison discs is on a modern electric turntable; it is then that you hear the richness that the Edison machines themselves could not resurrect.

I am genuinely curious about your term "honk." I've never seen it used before as an antique phonograph term. Does it mean a frequency range at which there is some sort of "blast?" (a term I've seen more often).

I took Greg's use of the term "honk" to mean a "sweet spot" in the frequency response range of the horn where a given frequency / band of frequencies are MUCH more prominent than their neighbors; could be interpreted as "blasting" I suppose, but as a function of certain pitch or pitches, as opposed to a function of sudden increase in performance volume of the musicians in the studio.


The ultimate satisfaction is in the ear of the listener, but I think as far as engineering, acoustics, and mathematics go, the Western Electric exponential horn as employed by Victor had an edge over the Edisonic.

And, not unlike a concert grand piano, where the exponential horn is concerned, there is an "ideal length", and anything shorter than that starts to compromise sound quality. So, probably the "best-sounding" Orthophonics are the big-guys... the 8-30 and 10-series.

The term "honk" to me refers to the frequency
response.

When a graph is plotted that has frequency
on the X axis, and amplitude on the Y axis,
this "honk" could be clearly seen as a rise
or a peak in the plotted data.

Say, for instance, we plot frequencies from
0 to 20,000 cycles per second on the X axis.

Then, we can also plot amplitude in decibels
on the Y axis.

Without modern electronic equalization, we
will see many peaks and valleys in the plotted
frequency response.

Telephone circuits are famous for their
"honk" at 1000 cycles per second.

These resonant peaks are due to many factors.
Some few of them are: Playback horn shape.
Playback diaphragm resonance. Recording
horn shape. Recording diaphragm resonance.
There are many, many other factors too.

Think of the built-in resonance of the
reproducer's linkage, and then also consider
the resonant peaks built in to the hardware
used to carry the recorder cutter.

Most work on these factors was done on
an entirely empirical basis. The first attempt to throw some solid math at it, was
that Western Electric paper which resulted in
the Orthophonic machine.

So, they honk. But then again, so do our ears!

Chuck

See http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victrola%20Horns.htm

Henry wrote:See http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victrola%20Horns.htm

Interesting!


Clay

"So, they honk. But then again, so do our ears!"

When I was an undergrad in Music School, we had weekly Recital Hour every Wednesday after Lunch.

I dreaded those days when the Flute Ensemble would perform - not because they were not good ( they were quite good ) - but because two or more flutes together playing in harmony caused the bony-bits in my middle-ear to buzz something dreadful!

I did not experience the same phenomenon from other like-instrument ensembles...

After several of you said you prefer your standard DD reproducers over the Edisonic, I have to put in a word for them. I have some excellent NOS Edisonics and some rebuilt Dance reproducers. With a good electric DD, they sound absolutely fantastic!!! Playing a record like 52630 "Chinese Wedding Procession" by the Goldman Band will blow you away with its hall commanding sound, or 52621 "I'm Cuckoo Again" by Jack Dalton and the 7 Blue Babies will make your ears grin! Nothing wrong with preferring the older reproducer as not everyone is as into the music as I am.